PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
SAWYER COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS
15 MARCH 2005
Board of Appeals = BOA
RZ = Ray Zubrod, Chairman
AG = Alan Gerber, Vice-Chairman
KZ = Kenneth Zeroth
LN = Larry Neff
LR = Laura Rusk
HB = Howard Brossard, 1st Alternate
Zoning Administration = ZA
WAC = William A. Christman, Zoning Administrator
CY = Cindy Yackley, Deputy Zoning Administrator
1) Call to Order and Roll Call
RZ calls the Public Hearing before the Sawyer County Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7:00 P.M. in the Sawyer County Courthouse, 10610 Main St., Hayward, Wisconsin. Roll is called finding present: RZ, AG, KZ, HB, LR, WAC, and CY.
2) Statement of Board and Hearing Procedures.
Those wishing to speak will be afforded the opportunity provided they identify themselves. RZ gives order of submitting files to BOA, taking testimony, and making a decision. Requests orderly procedure. Gives appeal deadline.
3) Statement of Hearing Notice.
Public Hearing published as a Class 2 Notice in accordance with Chapter 985 of the Wisconsin Statutes in the Sawyer County Record on February 23 and March 2, 2005. RZ gives agenda outline.
1) Town of Edgewater – Peter Bratsos et ux. 05-006. Lot 1, being Part of Govt Lot 1, S 9, T 37N, R 9W, Parcel :1.18. Vol 473 Records Page 227; CSM Vol 12 Page 31. .71 acres containing approximately 30,927 square feet. Property is zoned Residential/Recreational One. Application is for the construction of an irregularly shaped 36’x75’ dwelling containing approximately 1,500 square feet at a setback distance of 67.5’ from the ordinary high water mark of Lake Chetac. Variance is requested as Section 4.49(1), Sawyer County Zoning Ordinance, would require a minimum setback distance of 75’ from the ordinary high water mark of navigable waters. The Town Board has approved.
WAC reads application into the record; presents tax listers map, zone district map, and wetland map. Also displays photos. Five (5) letters were sent. 1 was returned with no objections; 1 with objections. Bratsos present, shows maps. Says property is very steep, greater than 1 to 1 on both sides. Water on 3 sides, it is a peninsula. Shows proposed floor plan. Proposed single car garage, 1 bedroom downstairs. RZ asks if 1500 sq ft is all liveable area. Bratsos: Total footprint is 1700 sq ft with garage. KZ asks about dimensions. Bratsos: 33’ at maximum width, 63’ to end of building, 78’ to the point. Sandra Raby, lives on East Shore Drive, not sure where property is relative to hers, owns 400’ on lakeshore, feels setbacks are in place for a reason and need to be enforced. Byron Gorres owns adjoining lot, is in favor. Bratsos is just asking for 7 ½ ft. RZ asks if Bratsos has worked out other plans that would meet setbacks. Bratsos has tried, but no functional solution. He’d be eliminating garage and bedrooms. RZ: Reducing the length of the building by 8 ft should fit the lot and not make the lot fit the building. HB feels a lot of thought has gone into the plan. KZ agrees. Bratsos has made every effort. It is a buildable lot and the only way to fit a home on the property. AG: Eliminating the garage won’t solve anything. Asks about construction time line. Bratsos wants to get started this
Board of Appeals
PH: 15 March 2005
summer. Sandra Raby asks when lot was purchased. Bratsos: 1990-91. Raby feels he should have known when he purchased about the 75’ setback and that lot was limited. It would be a big impact on the lake.
AG motions to approve the application as presented.
KZ seconds motion.
Conclusions of Law: Unnecessary hardship is due to physical limitations of the lot. Complying with the Zoning Ordinance would render the lot non-conforming and not useable. Hardship is due to physical limitations of the lot and the variance would not be contrary to public interest.
2) Town of Sand Lake – John W. Rainville et ux. Lot 7, being Part of Govt Lot 3, S 26, T 39N, R 9W, Parcel :3.3. Vol 524 Records Page 338; CSM Vol 12 Page 44. Approximately 100’x663’ containing 1.55 acres. Property is zoned Residential/Recreational One. Application is for the construction of a 20’x40’ (22’x42’ with eaves) detached garage at a setback distance of 33’ to the ordinary high water mark of Ham Lake and 39’ to a wetland area adjacent to the lake. Variance is requested as Section 4.49(1), Sawyer County Zoning Ordinance, would require a minimum setback distance of 75’ from both the ordinary high water mark of the lake and the wetland area adjacent to the lake. The Town Board has approved the application.
WAC reads application into the record; presents tax listers map, zone district map, and wetland map. Also displays photos. Six (6) letters were sent. 4 were returned with no objections. Rainville present. Lot is approx. 600’ deep, 50% is wetland, about 5% of lot is buildable. This is separate lot from the one with his home, no intention of building another home on this lot, would like to build a garage but not in the area of dwelling site. Has planted trees. Previous owner had cleared area. Shows photos of property and letter from adjacent property owner who is in favor of the request. Lot is very narrow. Asking for a 35’ variance. Will be moving here full time. Has taken safeguards to control runoff with holding ponds. AG: Rainville referred to the garage as a cabin. What is it actually? More bedroom space? Rainville: It is currently used for his kids to play in, not to live in. A bobcat is stored in there. It was previously used as a dwelling while the home was being built. RZ explains recent case law and hardship criteria. Cannot see the unnecessary hardship. Rainville has an alternate site. Protecting wetlands is BOA’s job. The site chosen for garage is not feasible. AG agrees, questions building a garage on a vacant lot. WAC explains that the lots are adjoining and not considered vacant. Rainville not in favor of re-routing driveway. RZ: He is also asking for a variance for a lake setback. Board wouldn’t approve that for a dwelling, much less a garage. The stream is considered part of the lake. A 75’ setback is necessary. WAC: On December 31 the stream was open.
RZ motions to deny the application.
AG seconds motion to deny.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: It would be the convenience of the owner. There is no hardship, if any it is self-created. It would be damaging to others and property values. It is not due to change of zone district or special conditions unique to the property.
1) Francis Tyson Variance 04-029 – Single story addition was approved, now Tyson would like second story. Asking if BOA would consider hearing another variance for two story addition instead of single story. BOA: Gave them what they could. If Tyson wants to apply for another variance, they would listen but not sure it would be approved. AG: 2nd story would be a visual impediment. WAC: Must he wait 12 months to apply again? AG has no problem if he wants to apply earlier. WAC will let Tyson know that BOA approval does not include second story. BOA members agree.
Board of Appeals
PH: 15 March 2005
2) Thorvald Skar Variance 03-003 – Requesting extension of 2-year deadline. Delay has been due to medical issues. BOA approved variance on April 15, 2003 for accessory building on vacant property, with the condition of a 2-year deadline. Skar has not yet taken out Land Use Permit. AG: Skar should take out the permit before the expiration date, construction does not have to be complete by then. BOA agrees, permit should be taken out before April 15, 2005.
3) Corporation Counsel attendance at BOA hearings – BOA agrees that Corp. Counsel be present at any appeals of Zoning Committee decisions, but not at regular variance hearings.
COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS
1) Next regular Board of Appeals meeting set for April 19, 2005 at 7:00 PM.
LR motions to adjourn.
HB seconds motion.